I thought Britain was under sharia law?

[Ludicus]

Throughout history evil has never needed an overwhelming majority, or even a small majority, to flourish.

I see your point,the Muslim evil is a deadly, highly contagious infection.
Muslims At The Gates of Europe (Orbin's wall)

Muslims.. rape tens of thousands of underage infidel girls,

As someone put it, make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it.
--
Let's move on,
EU-League of Arab States summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, 25/02/2019
Sharm El-Sheikh summit declaration -Investing in Stability
The document contains 15 key points

We the Leaders of League of Arab States (LAS) and European Union (EU) member states held the first Summit on 24-25 February 2019... to discuss and address common and current challenges across the two regions comprising 12% of the world’s population and to embark on a new era of cooperation and coordination; confident that strengthened interaction between the member states of LAS and EU has great potential to enhance the stability, prosperity, and well-being of the two regions and the world at large, working in tandem within the multilateral, rules-based global order.

...14.We further reaffirmed our resolve to combat cultural and religious intolerance, extremism, negative stereotyping, stigmatisation and discrimination leading to incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief and condemn any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement, hostility or violence, including on the internet and social media.

[Malcolm Tucker]

All religion is evil. The difference is that Islam is still in a supremacist phase, like Christianity was 1000 years ago. Thankfully Christianity is all but dead in Europe, and as a stone wall Atheist that makes me happy.

What makes me less happy is that the mass immigration of millions of Muslims every year is causing religious fanaticism and supremacy to grow once again. It's also causing the far right to grow in popularity all over Europe which, as history has taught us, does not end well.

There is no solution to propose anymore, it's already too late and the damage is done. Even if all Muslim immigration to Europe ceased today they're still going to be a majority in 100 years, but I doubt Islam will have had its own reformation and enlightenment by then... especially since Muslim reformers keep getting killed for blasphemy and many people who want to leave the religion are too afraid of being killed for apostacy.

So basically the future of Europe is segregated societies, sectarian violence, no-go zones and Sharia law. And I personally think that's tragic.

So a "record 1.3 million" refugees entered Europe in 2015, with half coming from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. That's over 1 million, but not all would be Muslim and certainly not the "millions" you're claiming.

As to your other claim, which is quite a tired and oft-repeated fearmongering statistic, were there no further immigration from Muslim countries, by 2050 they would represent 7.4% of the population and if you follow that trend (an increase of 2.5% in 34 years), by 2100 we can expect a Muslim population of around 12-13%. Not exactly the majority you're claiming. Where are your figures from? And I'm not sure if this is even accounting for the secularising and moderating effect of living in Europe where we could expect fewer people to identify as Muslim over time.

[Mayer]

So a "record 1.3 million" refugees entered Europe Germany in 2015

Fixed that for you. And every month the population of a small city is migrating, we are reliving the Barbarian Invasions, only this time it's the germans that get

with half coming from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Then how can the other half claim to be refugees when they clearly don't come from war zones? They are economic migrants who heard that Germany is rich and Merkel is giving handouts to foreigners.

[PointOfViewGun]

Fixed that for you. And every month the population of a small city is migrating, we are reliving the Barbarian Invasions, only this time it's the germans that get

False. That number is the total number for asylum applications in 28 states of the European Union as well as Norway and Switzerland. To equate this to Barbarian Invasions defies any logic or common sense.

Then how can the other half claim to be refugees when they clearly don't come from war zones? They are economic migrants who heard that Germany is rich and Merkel is giving handouts to foreigners.

You don't need to come from a war zone to be a refugee. Here you go:

Who is a refugee?

A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.

[Morifea]

@PointofViewGun: Don`t you dare to shatter the oversimplification that rules every discussion in Germany

[Malcolm Tucker]

Fixed that for you. And every month the population of a small city is migrating, we are reliving the Barbarian Invasions, only this time it's the germans that get


Then how can the other half claim to be refugees when they clearly don't come from war zones? They are economic migrants who heard that Germany is rich and Merkel is giving handouts to foreigners.

You're not fixing it for me; you're pulling a figure out of thin air to dispute figures that ultimately come from Eurostat. So what's your source which is much more reliable than the EU's statistics agency?

And it's already been pointed out to you that you don't need to be fleeing a warzone to claim refugee status. What do you think a homosexual man's life is like in some sub-Saharan countries, for example?

[Kraut]

The British home secretary has revoked the citizenship of the now-infamous jihadi bride Shamima Begum, effectively making her stateless.https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10...latest-updates

You mean they have declared her "haram"? Obvious sharia rule in UKistan is obvious!! ;-)

[Aexodus]

You don't need to come from a war zone to be a refugee. Here you go:

In the UK you need to be persecuted to be a refugee, general violence or war doesn’t matter.

False. That number is the total number for asylum applications in 28 states of the European Union as well as Norway and Switzerland. To equate this to Barbarian Invasions defies any logic or common sense.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...built-10255364

In the UK alone they will have to build 3 cities the size of Birmingham in five years

[Prodromos]

As to your other claim, which is quite a tired and oft-repeated fearmongering statistic, were there no further immigration from Muslim countries, by 2050 they would represent 7.4% of the population and if you follow that trend (an increase of 2.5% in 34 years), by 2100 we can expect a Muslim population of around 12-13%. Not exactly the majority you're claiming. Where are your figures from? And I'm not sure if this is even accounting for the secularising and moderating effect of living in Europe where we could expect fewer people to identify as Muslim over time.

Muslims are significantly younger than Europeans. They might make up "only" 7-14% of the population, but that's potentially 20-40% of the young population. And once those old native Europeans die off, Muslims will be a majority. So within 100-200 years at most. Muslims are also not equally distributed throughout Europe; there's a few countries with almost no Muslims, and those countries bring down the regional average. In countries like Sweden, Muslims are expected to make up 20-30% of the population within a few decades, and since Muslims are younger than natives, they'll comprise a majority of the young population. And that's by 2050.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/e...im-population/

This is an extreme emergency. The West is definitely not going down without a fight. If you think Le Pen and the AfD are extreme, that is really child's play compared to what's coming.

[PointOfViewGun]

In the UK you need to be persecuted to be a refugee, general violence or war doesn’t matter.

UK is a party to the UN convention on refugees. So, there is no in UK or outside UK distinction here.

[Aexodus]

UK is a party to the UN convention on refugees. So, there is no in UK or outside UK distinction here.

The UK is a party to the 1967 protocol, which doesn’t include people fleeing war or violence.

[Morifea]

Muslims are significantly younger than Europeans.

The Power of the Qu`ran hinders their aging process? That`s cool.

[Aexodus]

UK is a party to the UN convention on refugees. So, there is no in UK or outside UK distinction here.

The UK is a party to the 1967 protocol, which doesn’t include people fleeing war or violence.

The Power of the Qu`ran hinders their aging process? That`s cool.

The average age is younger

[Prodromos]

The Power of the Qu`ran hinders their aging process? That`s cool.

This is because Muslims are younger (by 13 years, on average) and have higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern.

i.e. it doesn't matter if they make up "only" 30% of the population. A 70-year-old European isn't going into battle. What matters is what proportion of young adult males are Muslim, which will be 50%+ within a few decades.

[PointOfViewGun]

The UK is a party to the 1967 protocol, which doesn’t include people fleeing war or violence.

Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees

Article 1 - General provision

1. The States Parties to the present Protocol undertake to apply articles 2 to 34 inclusive of the Convention to refugees as hereinafter defined.

2. For the purpose of the present Protocol, the term "refugee" shall, except as regards the application of paragraph 3 of this article, mean any person within the definition of article I of the Convention as if the words "As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and..." and the words "...as a result of such events", in article 1 A (2) were omitted.

3. The present Protocol shall be applied by the States Parties hereto without any geographic limitation, save that existing declarations made by States already Parties to the Convention in accordance with article I B (I) (a) of the Convention, shall, unless extended under article I B (2) thereof, apply also under the present Protocol.

Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees

A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who:

(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization;

Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfil the conditions of paragraph 2 of this section;

(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

Fleeing war and violence is kinda the primary reason why we had a refugee convention in the first place.

[Aexodus]

But where does it say we must accept people fleeing war and/or violence?

[PointOfViewGun]

But where does it say we must accept people fleeing war and/or violence?

The part where I put in bold.

[Aexodus]

That’s not what that means lmao

[PointOfViewGun]

That’s not what that means lmao

It pretty much does.

[Malcolm Tucker]

Muslims are significantly younger than Europeans. They might make up "only" 7-14% of the population, but that's potentially 20-40% of the young population. And once those old native Europeans die off, Muslims will be a majority. So within 100-200 years at most. Muslims are also not equally distributed throughout Europe; there's a few countries with almost no Muslims, and those countries bring down the regional average. In countries like Sweden, Muslims are expected to make up 20-30% of the population within a few decades, and since Muslims are younger than natives, they'll comprise a majority of the young population. And that's by 2050.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/e...im-population/

This is an extreme emergency. The West is definitely not going down without a fight. If you think Le Pen and the AfD are extreme, that is really child's play compared to what's coming.

Are you reading the article in full or just looking at the charts? Firstly it says that the exceptional years are unlikely to be repeated because EU nations are legislating against accepting high numbers of migrants and secondly the high migration figures you're quoting for the 20-30% figure in Sweden is based upon if record levels of migrants continue to arrive like they did from 2014-16. Considering the figures dropped significantly in 2018, the "high" scenario doesn't seem the most likely.